MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The detection of non-O157 E. coli in food by immunomagnetic separation

2004· article· en· W1970205875 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Drysdale, M. MacRae, Norval J. C. Strachan, Thomas M. Reid, I.D. Ogden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsImmunomagnetic separationFood scienceEscherichia coliIsolation (microbiology)Nalidixic acidSerotypeSalmonellaChemistryChromatographyFood microbiologyEnterobacteriaceaeBiologyMicrobiologyBacteriaBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To compare immunomagnetic separation (IMS) protocols (enrichment media and temperature) for the isolation of Escherichia coli serotypes O26 and O111 from four different foods. METHODS AND RESULTS: Foods (minced beef, cheese, apple juice and pepperoni) spiked with low numbers (<100 g(-1)) of stressed nalidixic mutant E. coli serotypes O26 and O111 were enriched in media based on buffered peptone water (BPW), tryptone soya and EC broths incubated at temperatures of 37 and 42 degrees C to optimize the IMS technique. BPW enrichments gave increased recoveries of both serotypes compared with tryptone soya and EC broths. Elevated temperatures of incubation at 42 degrees C were superior to 37 degrees C. CONCLUSIONS: Positive detection of low numbers of stressed target pathogens in all replicate tests was only possible using BPW enrichments. The majority of tests from alternative enrichments resulted in zero or single colonies recovered post-IMS. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The optimum IMS protocol would improve isolation rates of E. coli O26 and O111 from foods and lead to increased safety for the consumer. Sub-optimal IMS protocols could lead to foods being incorrectly labelled free from these pathogens.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MicrobiologySame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207